Mr. Speaker, it seems I have the honour of being the last speaker on the very important question of Bill C-10.
If there is one thing the debate on Bill C-10 has shown us, it is that this Parliament is dysfunctional. In a democracy like ours, particularly in a majority government situation, we have to make sure that the best legislation is presented and passed in the House, which is comprised of all elected members from everywhere in Canada. Given that the government is obviously in favour of this bill, it must hear the arguments put forward by the opposition, from whatever party it may be, in order to improve it. To do that, it must be able to swallow its pride and admit that it does not have a monopoly on the truth and that the opposition’s arguments may be valid and may prevent mistakes that would otherwise be made in a totalitarian government.
In this case, we have seen the problems and the aberrations of a dysfunctional Parliament. The government is proposing nine bills dealing with the Criminal Code and putting them all together. Some of them might have been supported by the opposition parties, whether the NDP or the three other parties represented in the House, and passed quickly. I am referring, for example, to the bill dealing with sexual offences against children. We are all reasonable people. We can understand that there is a strong consensus among Canadians that there should be longer sentences for that. But the government refused and then blames us for supporting the criminals who commit those heinous crimes.
Certain other bills had fairly major structural problems, which were raised on multiple occasions. The government refuses to address the structural problems raised by the opposition, claiming that the arguments have been heard and we can now move on to the vote, which will probably be held on Monday. The arguments may have been heard, but they were not understood, or they were dismissed out of hand without any further analysis.
I would like to talk about one problem in particular. It has been said that the government refuses to work with the opposition parties, including the NDP. I would like to note the excellent work done by our two justice critics, including the member for Gatineau, who is the deputy critic. They have done phenomenal work, as have the critics for the other opposition parties.
If the government refuses to work with the opposition parties, it should at least work with the provinces. We know that a majority of provinces, including Quebec, have serious reservations about several parts of this omnibus bill. Manitoba, one of the rare provinces the government relied on to give its bill some credibility, has also stated serious reservations about several parts of it. Most of the provinces do not agree with the way the bill is presented.
I am proud to say that we have worked with the provinces, particularly with Quebec, to amend some much more critical parts of this bill, including the part about young offenders that we were just discussing.
One of the changes suggested by the Minister of Justice of Quebec, with whom we have worked during this process, relates to the concept of the long-term protection of the public that the Conservatives want to remove. The concept of the long-term protection of the public was in the previous young offenders legislation. The Conservatives are removing it and refuse to include the concept of the long-term protection of the public.
In a previous life, I worked for a youth centre, Ressources alternatives Rive-Sud, in Longueuil. I saw the work that was done on rehabilitating young offenders and raising their awareness. This bill is concerned with young persons who have committed more serious crimes, fine. But the solution proposed for this will send these young persons to crime school, and there will be no hope of providing long-term protection for the public.
A second point in the bill would make the rule that bans the publication of any information that would identify a young offender who has committed violent crimes less stringent.
At present, that limitation exists for serious crimes for which, for example, a young offender will be referred to adult court. But by making it possible for these young offenders’ identity to be disclosed in relation to investigations of violent crimes, whatever they are, it is systematically stigmatizing those young people and creating one more barrier to their potential rehabilitation and reintegration. Quebec, most of the provinces and the opposition parties did their homework. The only ones who did not do it are the federal government. The provinces are going to pay and the public is going to pay.
